Discussion for article #229497
Iâve heard of lawyers taking on some really dumb lawsuits in my time but when a law firm turns down a lawsuit I suspect that the law firm does not want to be publicly embarrassed by an incredibly stupid potential client.
13 Likes
Something about a ten foot pole just isnât quite sufficient.
9 Likes
law firms that are susceptible to political pressure from wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients
Hahahahaha, everything is a conspiracy against Repubs!!! Everything!!!
15 Likes
A serious conservative leaning law firm might take this - if they were convinced that it was being backed with serious intentions - but law firms tend to have a few insightful people in them - and most will see this for what it is - a public relations adventure - lots of smoke & mirrors & saber rattling - with no genuine litigation intentions.
Even distinguished law firms like theater ⌠but they kind of steer away from tacky vaudeville performances like what this has become.
13 Likes
Thatâs the way it is when youâre scared of everything. If repubes have one defining characteristic itâs paranoia.
4 Likes
We are also closely following what the administration does on executive amnesty, and the possible impact that could have on the litigation strategy.
Amazing. Now the GOP has become cranky old coot who threatens to sue you for even thinking about walking on his lawn.
12 Likes
âdropped out of the caseâ? So far,there is no case. Thatâs the point. No case has been filed and it probably hasnât been prepared so the litigation DOES NOT remain on track.
8 Likes
House Republicans, the pity date has herpes.
2 Likes
âFrivolous lawsuitââŚfrom the people who coined the term (GOPers).
6 Likes
No respectable law firm is going to handle this NON case, as they know it is going nowhere, and they do not want their good name muddied. It does say something that their other clients complaints is why they dropped Boehner like a hot potato, and I would imagine most of the country will be just as pissed off if he keeps this up.
Guess what stupid teabags, your tax dollars have already gone into paying these two firms for their time up to now. Fiscal CONservatives my ass.
9 Likes
I say let them play their constant BS games for another two years. You know if they do get the Senate, they are going to believe that the entire country gave them a mandate to be total assholes, instead of a few people in a few states in very close contests. If they do what I expect them to do, it is going to be a bloodbath for them in 2016, when it is their turn to have a bunch of vulnerable seats up in the Senate, in a Presidential election.
4 Likes
Both prominent Washington D.C.-based firms are said to have quit under pressure from other clients
This excuse just sounds a little hollow to me⌠I donât doubt that there might be some of their clients that may have objected to their firm embarking on such an adventure. But, on the same token such a consequence would have been foreseeable and would have been considered and planned for at the time that the firm was doing their due diligence before they agreed to accept the case. As I see it the major virtue that such a âexcuseâ has now is that it sounds eminently reasonable and is completely un-verifiable.
My suspicion is that some of the side effects of Boehnerâs âmanagement problemsâ may have spilled over and infected the upper tiers of the law firm itself. Perhaps some of the members of Boehenerâs caucus had tried to do an end run around the speakerâs office and were polluting the senior partnerâs call sheets with nuisance calls and meetings in an attempt to provide âdirectionâ to the suit.
After all, why would we expect the screeching, hissing & spitting herd of alley cats that make up the Tea/pub bubba Caucus to all of a sudden become polite and respectful of professionals that are just trying to do a serious job? This is their governing M.O⌠They only think they are being effective when they are putting their thumb on the scales.
3 Likes
I heard âsomebodyâ say that Ken Starr would take the caseâŚ
3 Likes
You know, I said the same thing in 2000 when the Supreme Court appointed W president. I figured heâd muck things up for 4 years and then lose reelection in a bloodbath. Of course, I could never have anticipated Sept. 11th and how the mood of the country would change. I think youâre probably right, but I donât ever want to run that risk again â thereâs just too much at stake.
5 Likes
This is actually what happened with the gay marriage lawsuit Boehner lost. The original law firm, King & Spalding, wanted to drop the case because a major client, Pepsi I believe, but donât quote me, said theyâd pull their business because they believed in their gay employeesâ rights to get married. The lawyer who was primary, Paul Clement, resigned his partnership at that firm and joined a boutique Washington, D.C. firm so he could continue the case. Obviously he lost.
1 Like
Yes, that is my recollection too⌠And as such this kind of client push-back would have been a foreseeable consequence of getting in bed with Boehner et al. It is not reasonable that a firm such as this (especially Quinn Emanuel) would have agreed to take this case if they didnât have this base covered. There is something else going on here beneath the surface.
2 Likes
You know, you are probably right. What client is really going to care about a lawsuit about limiting executive action when the issue at hand is such a minor issue? In reality, Quinn probably realized there was no case. Obama was well within his rights.
1 Like
Catch a clue, BONER! You donât have standing!
we are examining the possibility of forgoing outside counsel and handling the litigation directly through the House, rather than through law firms that are susceptible to
political pressureridicule fromwealthy, Democratic-leaningintelligent clients
FIFY
3 Likes